familiar with in England in the form of Children's Services, improved Hymnals, restored Churches, and the like. The Holy Table came, in some (now perhaps in many) churches, to have its proper place of honour; organs, painted windows, and the like were introduced; the cross is frequent in monuments and on the outside of churches. Communion every quarter (instead of once or twice a year) is now common, and a monthly, or sometimes more than monthly, celebration is not unknown.

A knowledge of this movement, and the healing influence of time in regard to his own troubles, gradually enabled the Bishop to recover from the great despondency' which was noticed in his Charge of 1875. It will be seen from the Suggestions as to the Catechism printed in Appendix III at the end of this volume, that the Bishop took very little direct part in the Lambeth Conference of 1878, being only present at the first day's session. He presented to it, however, the draft of his important 'Suggested Addition to Church Catechism,' which afterwards received the approval of the Episcopal Synod in Scotland. The first fresh effort on his part, in the direction of his old Reunion enterprise, may perhaps be found in the sermon which he preached at the Consecration of St. Mary's Cathedral, Edinburgh (30 October, 1879)—a noble building, especially in its interior, given to the Episcopal Church by the piety of two sisters, Barbara and Mary Walker, and probably the most important material instrument which it has received in this century next to Trinity College, Glenalmond. The sermon, entitled 'More than Solomon is here,' was evidently intended to conciliate the Scottish mind by showing the general advantages which such an institution possesses, rather than to sound a note of triumph. Of it he writes to his sister-in-law, Miss M. Barter:

If it had any merit it lies in its abstinence from anything very demonstrative. I have learnt that the Scotch mind is not to be carried by storm, as the English mind may be; and therefore I believe it was not unsuccessful here, though in England perhaps more would be expected on such an occasion.

Another timely publication at this date was an article on the Marquess of Bute's Translation of the Roman Breviary' (a book in 2 vols. 8vo.), which appeared in the 'Edinburgh Courant' of 16 December, 1879. The publication of which the article was a critique was not likely, in its original form-and it is now very scarce-to pass into many hands. The Bishop did a service to the Church by pointing out publicly some of the salient features of the Breviary, as compared with the Prayer Book, its cumbrousness and complexity, its addresses to saints of prayers that ought to be addressed to God, its retention of ridiculous legends and apocryphal matter, its large use of human words as Lessons,' and its comparatively small and very inconvenient use of Scripture. The reviewer also does not fail to indicate a certain bold and independent treatment of his material on which the Marquess had ventured.

This, however, was rather an excursus of a congenial sort than a definite step in the Reunion movement except so far as it might show the anti-Roman, but fair and courteous, controversial spirit of the reviewer. Next to the Edinburgh sermon I should count among such steps (and it was a much more decided one) a correspondence with the late Professor Milligan, of Aberdeen, whose friendship the Bishop had made over New Testament Revision. The latter wrote to me that the Bishop did not write much to him, and, as he (Milligan) went to St. Andrews once a year or so, he contented himself with the hope of seeing him personally there.

But from time to time letters passed between them, and

the following is important enough to be inserted here. It is dated Bishopshall, 19 April, 1880.

No truer words were ever spoken than some which I see you are reported to have used in your last Croall lecture. To speak of making the world believe in a Risen Lord by mere Bible circulation or missionary exertion was to waste time and strength, unless it were attended by the spectacle of Unity,' &c.

I have often said the same; but, as coming from one in your position, I rejoice to think it is infinitely more likely to carry weight. I also quite agree with you that there has been too much speaking about unity and too little action.' I have not only spoken much-perhaps too much-but have also done some little-though perhaps too little (though the best I could see my way to)—and now I shall look to you to help me to do more, or at least to invite me to march under your standard, with its admirable motto, Visible Unity and (Mutual) Helpfulness.' For some twenty years I have used daily the enclosed prayer,' and would gladly do anything more you may recommend.

The following was the answer, dated Aberdeen, 24 April :

'Visible Unity and Mutual Helpfulness.'

Let the excellent motto stand. I think that I should have it printed at the top of the note paper I am to use, that it may be constantly before my own eyes and those of my correspondents.

I am greatly pleased that you should have found anything to give you satisfaction in the newspaper report of my last lecture.

. By and by I shall have to publish the lectures and shall then have to try and speak out. What am I to do now? I really do not well know. I fear that I am not fit for much action, and thinking that we have had plenty at least of general speech, I too often sit moping in my own den here and let things go their way. There can be no doubt, however, I imagine, as to the great necessity which exists for a thorough reviewing on the part of all our Christian bodies of the whole situation. The solution

1 Probably the prayer for Unity from the Accession Service, with a clause specially applying it to Scotland. See Appendix III. p. 358.

offered by the mere fact of Disestablishment seems to me so short-sighted and so imperfect, that I can hardly think that even those most eager about it can thoroughly believe in their own panacea. I can hardly resist the conviction that there must be widespread beneath the surface the feeling that something more is necessary. You have lived long enough among us to know the hollowness of our Church cries.

Other letters followed on both sides, and the outcome, though not immediate, was doubtless a drawing together of two single-minded and wise-hearted men who between them laid the foundations of separate pillars that must some day grow together into an arch in the Church of God.

The Bishop, notwithstanding his kindly feeling to Presbyterians of a certain class, was nevertheless at all times on the alert to criticise and demolish inaccuracy in argument on their side, and in his Charge of 1880 ('Public Appeals,' ii. 616) he had occasion to notice a slip of the Duke of Argyll's, when he laid down, in a speech at Ballachulish, that Episcopacy grew out of Presbytery just as the Papacy grew out of Episcopacy, and urged his countrymen not to sacrifice any part of their ancient traditions, viz. of antagonism to this development. The Bishop's answer naturally was that the Papacy was no natural outgrowth of Episcopacy, but was due to the historical fact of the Pope's being Bishop of Rome, the capital of the civilised West. The Papacy was really the enemy of Diocesan Episcopacy. In the East Episcopacy had all along been universal, without giving birth to a Papacy, or acknowledging it in its Western form. The Duke's argument, therefore, though specious, was devoid of real cogency. A more important opportunity of gaining the public ear was, however, given him from another side a few months later.

In the winter of 1880-81 twelve of the Presbyterian

clergy were selected to deliver what were called the St. Giles's Lectures,' first in Edinburgh and afterwards in Glasgow, on the subject of Scottish Church History. These lectures were in many respects commendable, but some of them deserved comment and criticism, not only those dealing with the period of the Reformation, but more particularly the eighth lecture, by Dr. Story, dealing with the reign of William III., which had much of the 'keen east wind' about it. The Bishop of St. Andrews, whose 'Discourse on the Scottish Reformation,' published in 1861, showed his large command of historical material, was naturally asked to provide some counterbalancing considerations. He delivered two lectures in St. Mary's Cathedral, Edinburgh, on two successive Sundays, 8 and 15 May, 1881, which were afterwards published under the title, A Discourse on Scottish Church History from the Reformation to the present time, with Prefatory Remarks on the St. Giles's Lectures and Appendix of Notes and References' (Wm. Blackwood & Sons). The Prefatory Remarks are an elaborate review of the St. Giles's Lectures, which much enhance the value of the Discourse.' They show clearly enough the difference of opinion that existed among the lecturers, and add largely to our knowledge of the topics treated by them. The Discourse' itself is full of much matter for thought. It is based on four words -Reformation, Restoration, Revolution, Disruption. It must be confessed that the tone is rather sad, and has more in it of the lamentation of Hebrew prophecy than of the exulting hopefulness of Scottish patriotism. While Bishop Wordsworth was conscious of the strong points of the Scottish character, he was, I think,constantly repelled by its want of intelligent orderliness as understood by an Englishman. And his subject, in almost every aspect of it, suggested reasonable grounds for criticism. He had,